Now, the fish is hooked through the mouth. You just stated that Gutierrez would have met the same fate as Corona, and Corona was removed as a result of a political process, not a judicial one, so in a way, it was an extrajudicial process. The removal of Corona was flawed because the senators and congressmen who voted against him were bribed using the pork barrel funds, and they comprise the supermajority. If you don't believe it (because you[re a fanatic and just mouthing the same statements as those of Trillianes and Delima), then there's nothing more I can do. Of course, I agree that if the process is illegal, then it's flawed. That's common sense. You said drug charges were dismissed, which is why I asked for a link. If the link is based on facts, then we are on the same boat. I'm not a fanatic like you. I base my judgment on reason, not affiliation.

1. Why do you need a link when the SC already ruled that there was something wrong with the DAP disbursement? Napoles, Revilla, et al are proof that pork barrel funds could have been squandered. I don't have the luxury of time like you to search for those links so you should be familiar with current events. Didn't you tell me that? But wait a little longer and Pnoy would be next to Delima, et al.

2. 'Might be' is not a conviction. If you can prove to me that Duterte was convicted for those alleged ghost employees, I would believe you. Otherwise, it's pure hearsay.

3. I've already told you for the nth time that I don't have the luxury of time to delve into details because I base my opinion based on what I read about current events. If it was July, so be it. The date is not the issue here but whether Pnoy could have enforced the ruling or has the courage to drive the Chinese away from the shoals, because you criticize Digong as 'bahag ang buntot' against the Chinese which is farthest from the truth. He is just being practical.

4. Anybody can influence voting. If you think the CJ cannot influence voting, then you are naive and do not deserve to argue with me. Influencing and succeeding are 2 different things. She may have influenced or convinced some justices but getting the majority is another matter. Now, if you think the 14 justices are beholden to the previous president, then you don't believe that the SC is independent; that the justices are biased. What more lawmakers during Pnoy's term who were bribed with pork barrel funds?

5. Therein lies the difference between the 2 presidents. Pnoy already calculated that minus the pork barrel funds, the remaining available budget would be 2.9 billion. Without corruption, the budgets would have been similar, although it would depend on their priorities. The size of the budget does not indicate corruption but rather, it indicates available funds and allocation priorities.

6. So you don't believe that Napoles amassed billions from the pork barrel funds because she was not yet convicted? Don't force me to express 'What a jerk!' in disgust again.

7. If I did not put a comma after 'shut up', or placed the pronoun 'you' before 'sissy', then you may be right. But the reason I put the comma there was to show that the last word was intended as an expression of disgust. If I had uttered those words, you would understand what I mean. The last word would be spoken in a low tone, after a high tone for 'Just shut up'. But if you're not a sissy, you don't have to get offended. I don't use cuss words, so I use actual words in disgust.

If you think these sentences are antagonistic, that means you are not familiar with hyperbole.

1. But if you want plain language, then 'Use your head' would be fine.

2. If you prefer the American term, then 'This Emmanuel fellow' would be fine.

3. I don't see anything antagonistic in this sentence.

The problem with you is that you are imagining me delivering these sentences as you would have delivered them yourself, that is, the arrogant way, which is why you found them antagonistic. The problem is not with me but with you. I suggest you review your Grammar 101.

[/quote]

Emmanuel53 wrote:

rizalincarnate wrote:

Is impeachment an extra judicial process?

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body formally levels charges against a high official of Government. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; it is only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law, and is thus only the first step towards removal. Once an individual is impeached, he or she must then face the possibility of conviction via legislative vote, which then entails the removal of the individual from office.

Extra judicial - not legally authorized ,

Palusot pa more.

You said Duterte had no issues of corruption , so you're not talking of conviction on the other hand you judge Pnoy guilty of bribing congressmen, any link you can provide which declared Aquino guilty. Then as you say that is also pure hearsay.

Again the Supreme Court voting is 14 - 0 , so how did Sereno influence the voting?

I don't seen any antagonistic in the sentence? ?? You should be the one reviewing your grammar 101.

Funny you can type long sentences , but cannot verify two dates which would surely take less time than what you wrote.

Palusot pa more.

Dig yourself a deeper hole.

Oh and about Napoles , sure I believe she amassed billions , does that make her principal or accessory? Careful, careful.

I did not say that impeachment is not legal because it is part of the procedure of ousting a govt official. I said IN A WAY it was extra-judicial', that is outside of the justice system where wrongdoers are tried through the courts. In the Corona case, he resigned because he knew that Pnoy had the number, not because he admitted he was guilty or was proven guilty. If i remember right, he died a free man. I repeat, impeachment is a politically motivated process, not a judicial one.

Meriam Webster: Extrajudicial1. not involving, occurring in, or forming part of a legal proceeding 2. stemming from something outside of a court proceeding3. occurring or arising outside of the course of judicial duties

The problem with you is you have the penchant for selectivity - just choosing the meaning favorable to your argument. Palusot pa more!

Napoles already owned up to profiting from the pork barrel. The Mamasapano incident is another. It is immaterial whether Pnoy was convicted or not (not yet), but material and circumstantial evidences point to conviction. Some lawmakers already admitted that they were bribed or otherwise 'threatened' to toe the line. That's not hearsay. Digong is still starting as president and there are no issues against him. Therein lies the difference.

The voting result does not show the influencing of anybody because the SC votes as a body, that is, whatever side wins, everyone would vote the same. I repeat, you may try influencing others and succeed in convincing some, but that does not guarantee success.

I don't see anything antagonostic in this sample sentence you presented. If you were antagonized by it, then you should not be arguing in social fora.

'3. Do you think that all facebook users are REAL persons? You are just clueless as if you were born yesterday.'

Of course, I can type long sentences because I'm just replying to your posts. Don't tell me that scrolling your post and replying it is harder than searching for a news source. Palusot pa more.

For the case of plunder, she cannot be the principal because she is not a govt official. She can only be an accessory. Do you understand what plunder means in our justice system? Palusot pa more!

[/quote]

Emmanuel53 wrote:

rizalincarnate wrote:

Corona did not resign , he was impeached. How many times do you have to embarrass yourself with falsities?

You said Duterte had no issues of corruption, he had as mayor of Davao. Lawmakers also admitted that pork barrel is back , and with a vengeance , so using the same line of reasoning that you employed , this is not hearsay.

Everyone would vote the same where did you get that - the Supreme Court voted 14 - 0 on the PDAF, on the question of Marcos' burial - the vote was was 9 - 5 . Tsk tsk , are you in another world, where an alternate reality exists?

How long did it take me to find the voting results - less than a minute.

Oh and about the comma - review your grammar -" Any comma essentially represents a pause – one that gives your readers the signal to take a quick breath before continuing with the next portion of the sentence. When a comma is used, it places more emphasis on what immediately precedes and follows the comma." So it aggravates the whole thing.

Ignorance is not an excuse - you don't have the time to check your facts , then refrain from posting. And about Napoles who said anything about plunder - the charge against Napoles was malversation of public funds.

And be original - don't be a copycat - Palusot pa more.

Corona was impeached, alright, but he died before receiving his sentence, that's why his crime was extinguished upon his death.

Everybody can file a case against anybody, but if they don't have evidence, it won't prosper. Although what he did as mayor has nothing to do with the presidency, I haven't heard any news that he had been convicted of corruption.

I've read somewhere (I forgot where) that on certain (major?) issues, the SC justices first vote according to their conscience, then agree to vote again unanimously in favor of the winning decision, probably to avoid controversy on such decision.

It only shows that you have nothing inside your head and just googling your replies. I thought you knew so many things at first, but not anymore.

You are free to interpret my expressions, but I stick to how I felt about your posts. For example, when I one of your posts made me laugh so hard, I exclaimed: 'What a jerk!'. I did not say, 'You're a jerk!'

Of course, her case can not be plunder! That's why she is being considered as state witness against the senators for being just an accessory to their crime.

Look whose talking! The reason why you did not reply to my definition of 'extrajudicial' is because you did not check your facts. It only takes a minute to do it. Why not tell yourself to refrain from posting to avoid embarrassment?Palusot ka pa! Next time, google the meaning first as you're wont to do with your other posts instead of using your own definition. Admit that your innate knowledge is limited at best.

[/quote]

Emmanuel53 wrote:

So he was impeached, tsk tsk , then why did you say he resigned , simple matter of fact and you can't get it straight.

You said . issues of corruption, not conviction and neither was Aquino convicted of any , yet you said Pnoy was guilty. Double standard. Simple waiver of bank accounts and Duterte couldn't produce one , when he and Cayetano were the first ones who actually challenged other presidential aspirants with a fake waiver which cannot be used. If Duterte has nothing to hide , then issue a waiver. He even made a big show of ordering the AMLC to show his net worth when in fact an enabling court order needs to be issued.

So where did you read that the Supreme Court has to vote unanimously? I already knew beforehand that the Supreme Court casts individual votes and are not obligated to vote unanimously, I just validated the vote results as example. But then you don't get that do you, very few people actually remember the actual tallies of how SC justices vote on certain issues because the vote results are not always the same.

Tsk tsk, so you're now dinging me on one word extra judicial - so based on your definition everything occurring outside the courts is extra judicial - so the legislative and executive processes are all extra judicial - go ahead ding me on that and make a laughing stock of yourself.

I was just playing you - and you didn't even check it out - her case was plunder and malversation of public funds , and corruption of public officials. Pinasakay lang kita, sumakay ka naman.

Napoles was charged with three counts of graft, malversation of public funds and corruption of public officers in connection with the anomalous disbursements of former Cagayan de Oro Rep. Constantino G. Jaraula’s Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), a pork barrel, from 2004 to 2007. The disbursements totaled P50 million.

Go ahead continue making a fool of yourself in this discussion. Again it takes less than a minute to check the info.

And continue being a copycat at the same time - palusot pa more.

So you don't think Corona was forced to resign? If you have the supermajority, not to mention bribing lawmakers for their votes, Corona was forced to resign. Forcing somebody to resign and actually resigning are 2 different things, just as impeached is different from convicted. Corona was convicted merely by lawmakers, not by our courts. It was extrajudicial. He has to be sentenced by the court to be convicted, but he was not sentenced. Even if he did not resign as you alleged, he would eventually resign for it is the normal thing to do when you have no recourse, just like Gutierrez.

It's not double standard because I'm talking of their situations as president. Pnoy has completed his term, so we already know what happened, how he illegally diverted funds and using pork barrel to bribe lawmakers, which is why Napoles was arrested with overwhelming evidence. When you bribe somebody with public funds, you abet corruption, and when they actually squandered the funds along with Napoles, Pnoy cannot just wash his hands like Pilate and say, 'I have nothing to do with what you squandered because I simply gave you money' to that effect. On the other hand, Digong has just started and he is doing great. Why rehash things he allegedly did as mayor? We are comparing presidents and their performances as president.

And now, you want Digong to show you everything he did as mayor through his bank account? You should present proof of wrongdoing, not fish for information.

Even if I forgot the instances when the SC voted unanimously on certain issues, I'm sure I have read sometime in the past that they did so on certain issues so that their decision would not be questioned or seen with a semblance of doubt.

So you still stick to your own definition of extrajudicial? Why not just print your own dictionary so that you can back up your claim. By the way, you are wrong to say it was based on MY definition. I said based on Meriam Webster, or you are just pretending not to read my post because you were caught with a foot-in-mouth disease?

So pinasakay mo lang pala ako. People when caught on the act would say they are just kidding, and that's exactly what you did to deny your ignorance. then you would google and find out that you were mistaken, but you have already posted your ignorance but would not admit your mistake. See? You yourself admitted that one of her cases was plunder, but she is a mere accessory to plunder because this crime is applicable only to public officials, not private individuals. Google it. I'm not a lawyer and I don't google, but I have something between my ears. Unlike you who relies on google to present his argument, not on his innate knowledge of things.

As they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and you put yourself in danger because you actually believe Delima and Trillanes for all their allegations against Digong. Just wait who will be convicted, I'm sure it will not be Digong. When that time comes, you will know who's making a fool of himself. I'll bet my wife you would no longer appear in this discussion due to embarrassment.

_________________In a land of geniuses, an average person is looked down as an id**t; in a land of idiots, a genius is looked down as a fool.

Success is measured not by what you have achieved, but by the degree of satisfaction you derive from it.

Now, the fish is hooked through the mouth. You just stated that Gutierrez would have met the same fate as Corona, and Corona was removed as a result of a political process, not a judicial one, so in a way, it was an extrajudicial process. The removal of Corona was flawed because the senators and congressmen who voted against him were bribed using the pork barrel funds, and they comprise the supermajority. If you don't believe it (because you[re a fanatic and just mouthing the same statements as those of Trillianes and Delima), then there's nothing more I can do. Of course, I agree that if the process is illegal, then it's flawed. That's common sense. You said drug charges were dismissed, which is why I asked for a link. If the link is based on facts, then we are on the same boat. I'm not a fanatic like you. I base my judgment on reason, not affiliation.

1. Why do you need a link when the SC already ruled that there was something wrong with the DAP disbursement? Napoles, Revilla, et al are proof that pork barrel funds could have been squandered. I don't have the luxury of time like you to search for those links so you should be familiar with current events. Didn't you tell me that? But wait a little longer and Pnoy would be next to Delima, et al.

2. 'Might be' is not a conviction. If you can prove to me that Duterte was convicted for those alleged ghost employees, I would believe you. Otherwise, it's pure hearsay.

3. I've already told you for the nth time that I don't have the luxury of time to delve into details because I base my opinion based on what I read about current events. If it was July, so be it. The date is not the issue here but whether Pnoy could have enforced the ruling or has the courage to drive the Chinese away from the shoals, because you criticize Digong as 'bahag ang buntot' against the Chinese which is farthest from the truth. He is just being practical.

4. Anybody can influence voting. If you think the CJ cannot influence voting, then you are naive and do not deserve to argue with me. Influencing and succeeding are 2 different things. She may have influenced or convinced some justices but getting the majority is another matter. Now, if you think the 14 justices are beholden to the previous president, then you don't believe that the SC is independent; that the justices are biased. What more lawmakers during Pnoy's term who were bribed with pork barrel funds?

5. Therein lies the difference between the 2 presidents. Pnoy already calculated that minus the pork barrel funds, the remaining available budget would be 2.9 billion. Without corruption, the budgets would have been similar, although it would depend on their priorities. The size of the budget does not indicate corruption but rather, it indicates available funds and allocation priorities.

6. So you don't believe that Napoles amassed billions from the pork barrel funds because she was not yet convicted? Don't force me to express 'What a jerk!' in disgust again.

7. If I did not put a comma after 'shut up', or placed the pronoun 'you' before 'sissy', then you may be right. But the reason I put the comma there was to show that the last word was intended as an expression of disgust. If I had uttered those words, you would understand what I mean. The last word would be spoken in a low tone, after a high tone for 'Just shut up'. But if you're not a sissy, you don't have to get offended. I don't use cuss words, so I use actual words in disgust.

If you think these sentences are antagonistic, that means you are not familiar with hyperbole.

1. But if you want plain language, then 'Use your head' would be fine.

2. If you prefer the American term, then 'This Emmanuel fellow' would be fine.

3. I don't see anything antagonistic in this sentence.

The problem with you is that you are imagining me delivering these sentences as you would have delivered them yourself, that is, the arrogant way, which is why you found them antagonistic. The problem is not with me but with you. I suggest you review your Grammar 101.

Emmanuel53 wrote:

rizalincarnate wrote:

Is impeachment an extra judicial process?

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body formally levels charges against a high official of Government. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; it is only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law, and is thus only the first step towards removal. Once an individual is impeached, he or she must then face the possibility of conviction via legislative vote, which then entails the removal of the individual from office.

Extra judicial - not legally authorized ,

Palusot pa more.

You said Duterte had no issues of corruption , so you're not talking of conviction on the other hand you judge Pnoy guilty of bribing congressmen, any link you can provide which declared Aquino guilty. Then as you say that is also pure hearsay.

Again the Supreme Court voting is 14 - 0 , so how did Sereno influence the voting?

I don't seen any antagonistic in the sentence? ?? You should be the one reviewing your grammar 101.

Funny you can type long sentences , but cannot verify two dates which would surely take less time than what you wrote.

Palusot pa more.

Dig yourself a deeper hole.

Oh and about Napoles , sure I believe she amassed billions , does that make her principal or accessory? Careful, careful.

I did not say that impeachment is not legal because it is part of the procedure of ousting a govt official. I said IN A WAY it was extra-judicial', that is outside of the justice system where wrongdoers are tried through the courts. In the Corona case, he resigned because he knew that Pnoy had the number, not because he admitted he was guilty or was proven guilty. If i remember right, he died a free man. I repeat, impeachment is a politically motivated process, not a judicial one.

Meriam Webster: Extrajudicial1. not involving, occurring in, or forming part of a legal proceeding 2. stemming from something outside of a court proceeding3. occurring or arising outside of the course of judicial duties

The problem with you is you have the penchant for selectivity - just choosing the meaning favorable to your argument. Palusot pa more!

Napoles already owned up to profiting from the pork barrel. The Mamasapano incident is another. It is immaterial whether Pnoy was convicted or not (not yet), but material and circumstantial evidences point to conviction. Some lawmakers already admitted that they were bribed or otherwise 'threatened' to toe the line. That's not hearsay. Digong is still starting as president and there are no issues against him. Therein lies the difference.

The voting result does not show the influencing of anybody because the SC votes as a body, that is, whatever side wins, everyone would vote the same. I repeat, you may try influencing others and succeed in convincing some, but that does not guarantee success.

I don't see anything antagonostic in this sample sentence you presented. If you were antagonized by it, then you should not be arguing in social fora.

'3. Do you think that all facebook users are REAL persons? You are just clueless as if you were born yesterday.'

Of course, I can type long sentences because I'm just replying to your posts. Don't tell me that scrolling your post and replying it is harder than searching for a news source. Palusot pa more.

For the case of plunder, she cannot be the principal because she is not a govt official. She can only be an accessory. Do you understand what plunder means in our justice system? Palusot pa more!

[/quote]

Emmanuel53 wrote:

rizalincarnate wrote:

Corona did not resign , he was impeached. How many times do you have to embarrass yourself with falsities?

You said Duterte had no issues of corruption, he had as mayor of Davao. Lawmakers also admitted that pork barrel is back , and with a vengeance , so using the same line of reasoning that you employed , this is not hearsay.

Everyone would vote the same where did you get that - the Supreme Court voted 14 - 0 on the PDAF, on the question of Marcos' burial - the vote was was 9 - 5 . Tsk tsk , are you in another world, where an alternate reality exists?

How long did it take me to find the voting results - less than a minute.

Oh and about the comma - review your grammar -" Any comma essentially represents a pause – one that gives your readers the signal to take a quick breath before continuing with the next portion of the sentence. When a comma is used, it places more emphasis on what immediately precedes and follows the comma." So it aggravates the whole thing.

Ignorance is not an excuse - you don't have the time to check your facts , then refrain from posting. And about Napoles who said anything about plunder - the charge against Napoles was malversation of public funds.

And be original - don't be a copycat - Palusot pa more.

Corona was impeached, alright, but he died before receiving his sentence, that's why his crime was extinguished upon his death.

Everybody can file a case against anybody, but if they don't have evidence, it won't prosper. Although what he did as mayor has nothing to do with the presidency, I haven't heard any news that he had been convicted of corruption.

I've read somewhere (I forgot where) that on certain (major?) issues, the SC justices first vote according to their conscience, then agree to vote again unanimously in favor of the winning decision, probably to avoid controversy on such decision.

It only shows that you have nothing inside your head and just googling your replies. I thought you knew so many things at first, but not anymore.

You are free to interpret my expressions, but I stick to how I felt about your posts. For example, when I one of your posts made me laugh so hard, I exclaimed: 'What a jerk!'. I did not say, 'You're a jerk!'

Of course, her case can not be plunder! That's why she is being considered as state witness against the senators for being just an accessory to their crime.

Look whose talking! The reason why you did not reply to my definition of 'extrajudicial' is because you did not check your facts. It only takes a minute to do it. Why not tell yourself to refrain from posting to avoid embarrassment?Palusot ka pa! Next time, google the meaning first as you're wont to do with your other posts instead of using your own definition. Admit that your innate knowledge is limited at best.

[/quote]

Emmanuel53 wrote:

So he was impeached, tsk tsk , then why did you say he resigned , simple matter of fact and you can't get it straight.

You said . issues of corruption, not conviction and neither was Aquino convicted of any , yet you said Pnoy was guilty. Double standard. Simple waiver of bank accounts and Duterte couldn't produce one , when he and Cayetano were the first ones who actually challenged other presidential aspirants with a fake waiver which cannot be used. If Duterte has nothing to hide , then issue a waiver. He even made a big show of ordering the AMLC to show his net worth when in fact an enabling court order needs to be issued.

So where did you read that the Supreme Court has to vote unanimously? I already knew beforehand that the Supreme Court casts individual votes and are not obligated to vote unanimously, I just validated the vote results as example. But then you don't get that do you, very few people actually remember the actual tallies of how SC justices vote on certain issues because the vote results are not always the same.

Tsk tsk, so you're now dinging me on one word extra judicial - so based on your definition everything occurring outside the courts is extra judicial - so the legislative and executive processes are all extra judicial - go ahead ding me on that and make a laughing stock of yourself.

I was just playing you - and you didn't even check it out - her case was plunder and malversation of public funds , and corruption of public officials. Pinasakay lang kita, sumakay ka naman.

Napoles was charged with three counts of graft, malversation of public funds and corruption of public officers in connection with the anomalous disbursements of former Cagayan de Oro Rep. Constantino G. Jaraula’s Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), a pork barrel, from 2004 to 2007. The disbursements totaled P50 million.

Go ahead continue making a fool of yourself in this discussion. Again it takes less than a minute to check the info.

And continue being a copycat at the same time - palusot pa more.

Quote:

So you don't think Corona was forced to resign? If you have the supermajority, not to mention bribing lawmakers for their votes, Corona was forced to resign. Forcing somebody to resign and actually resigning are 2 different things, just as impeached is different from convicted. Corona was convicted merely by lawmakers, not by our courts. It was extrajudicial. He has to be sentenced by the court to be convicted, but he was not sentenced. Even if he did not resign as you alleged, he would eventually resign for it is the normal thing to do when you have no recourse, just like Gutierrez.

It's not double standard because I'm talking of their situations as president. Pnoy has completed his term, so we already know what happened, how he illegally diverted funds and using pork barrel to bribe lawmakers, which is why Napoles was arrested with overwhelming evidence. When you bribe somebody with public funds, you abet corruption, and when they actually squandered the funds along with Napoles, Pnoy cannot just wash his hands like Pilate and say, 'I have nothing to do with what you squandered because I simply gave you money' to that effect. On the other hand, Digong has just started and he is doing great. Why rehash things he allegedly did as mayor? We are comparing presidents and their performances as president.

And now, you want Digong to show you everything he did as mayor through his bank account? You should present proof of wrongdoing, not fish for information.

Even if I forgot the instances when the SC voted unanimously on certain issues, I'm sure I have read sometime in the past that they did so on certain issues so that their decision would not be questioned or seen with a semblance of doubt.

So you still stick to your own definition of extrajudicial? Why not just print your own dictionary so that you can back up your claim. By the way, you are wrong to say it was based on MY definition. I said based on Meriam Webster, or you are just pretending not to read my post because you were caught with a foot-in-mouth disease?

So pinasakay mo lang pala ako. People when caught on the act would say they are just kidding, and that's exactly what you did to deny your ignorance. then you would google and find out that you were mistaken, but you have already posted your ignorance but would not admit your mistake. See? You yourself admitted that one of her cases was plunder, but she is a mere accessory to plunder because this crime is applicable only to public officials, not private individuals. Google it. I'm not a lawyer and I don't google, but I have something between my ears. Unlike you who relies on google to present his argument, not on his innate knowledge of things.

As they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and you put yourself in danger because you actually believe Delima and Trillanes for all their allegations against Digong. Just wait who will be convicted, I'm sure it will not be Digong. When that time comes, you will know who's making a fool of himself. I'll bet my wife you would no longer appear in this discussion due to embarrassment.

[/quote]Don't beat around the bush, was Corona impeached or was he forced to resign? Yes or no. Let us review your statements - First Statement -

Quote:

In the Corona case, he resigned because he knew that Pnoy had the number, not because he admitted he was guilty or was proven guilty

Second statement -

Quote:

Corona was impeached, alright, but he died before receiving his sentence, that's why his crime was extinguished upon his death

.Third statement -

Quote:

So you don't think Corona was forced to resign? If you have the supermajority, not to mention bribing lawmakers for their votes, Corona was forced to resign

Forced to resign, impeached , then forced to resign again, which is which, make up your mind. Choose your poison.

Tsk tsk , at sumakay ka naman. She was not an accessory to plunder - she is one of the principals involved.

"Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago believes businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles is the mastermind in the pork scam and should thus be prosecuted.“It appears that Napoles was the mastermind, so she is the most guilty. Further, it appears that many persons in her syndicate know of the conspiracy to plunder, so her discharge is not absolutely necessary,” Santiago said.She said Napoles will find it “extremely difficult” to prove that she is not the most guilty."

Additionally - "Napoles is being tried by the Sandiganbayan for the plunder charges against her in relation to the pork-barrel scam"

Did you find the word accessory in any of these statements?

This is your definition of the word extrajudicial.

Meriam Webster: Extrajudicial1. not involving, occurring in, or forming part of a legal proceeding 2. stemming from something outside of a court proceeding3. occurring or arising outside of the course of judicial duties

So again going by your definition, are executive and legislative processes extra judicial proceedings? Don't beat around the bush , yes or no?

Let me ask you who challenged all other presidential candidates to issue bank waivers, wasn't it Cayetano and Duterte? If Duterte has nothing to hide , why would he refuse to sign a waiver, when he was the one together with Cayetano who issued the challenge first?

Part of this article read - The country’s current account surplus went down by 91.7 percent to $601 million at the end of 2016 from $7.3 billion of the previous year, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) said yesterday, citing a bigger deficit in the trade-in-goods account tally for the period.

he BOP position had a deficit of $2.1 billion in the last quarter of 2016 which negated the $809 million surplus in the same period in 2015. The BSP said the current account “reversed to a deficit during the quarter even as the financial account registered lower net outflows (or net lending by residents to the rest of the world). It added that the “deficit in the current account was due mainly to the higher deficit in trade-in-goods, combined with lower net receipts of services and primary income.”

This is not media speaking - this is a factual report coming from the BSP. Take note , last quarter of 2016 .

On the contrary, Rizal is putting up a more realistic argument. I wonder though he's still wasting his time talking with that armchair and google analyst. Quit while you're still ahead, that man has a serious mental problem. He won't quit arguing and that's a fact!

On the contrary, Rizal is putting up a more realistic argument. I wonder though he's still wasting his time talking with that armchair and google analyst. Quit while you're still ahead, that man has a serious mental problem. He won't quit arguing and that's a fact!

You hit it right most of Emmanuel53 opinion is bias , one sided favoring yellow color

_________________Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others He who envies others does not achieve peace. - Buddha

On the contrary, Rizal is putting up a more realistic argument. I wonder though he's still wasting his time talking with that armchair and google analyst. Quit while you're still ahead, that man has a serious mental problem. He won't quit arguing and that's a fact!

On the contrary, Rizal is putting up a more realistic argument. I wonder though he's still wasting his time talking with that armchair and google analyst. Quit while you're still ahead, that man has a serious mental problem. He won't quit arguing and that's a fact!

You hit it right most of Emmanuel53 opinion is bias , one sided favoring yellow color

So was Corona impeached or forced to resign? Careful, baka mapusoy ka ulit.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 10 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum